pvxfandomcom-20200214-history
PvXwiki talk:Evaluating Build Masters
Might be kinda necessary, since more than half the BM staff has been gone for 1-2 months and some of the BMs have been defending really horrible builds lately--Golden19pxStar 22:14, 20 July 2008 (EDT) Basically the BM equivalent of PvX:EVAL. I think the "Are they policing the Wiki?" and similar questions can be left out because BMs have a little to do with policies. ~ ĐONT*SYSOP 22:32, 20 July 2008 (EDT) :Yeah, I basically c/p and changed very refernce to admin/sysop to BM :P--Golden19pxStar 22:35, 20 July 2008 (EDT) bump--Golden19pxStar 16:06, 28 July 2008 (EDT) support/oppose? I'm for it. We have one for Admins, so why not for BMs? PheNaxKian Sysop 11:04, 13 September 2008 (EDT) Poll For #I like it, but honestly I think there should be a similar system for Sysops. Needs to learn to read, Re: Phen--ﮎHædõ๘یíɳimage:Shadowsin_sig.PNG 17:48, 24 September 2008 (EDT) #Brandnew. 17:50, 24 September 2008 (EDT) #We have a policy for evaluating admins, one for BMs seems logical. PheNaxKian Sysop 12:39, 25 September 2008 (EDT) #Yeah buld masters need to be evaluatted,some may lose their touch or become inactive or maybe use their powers for evil!!(voting for friends builds tat arent actually that great)-- 16:24, 13 October 2008 (EDT) #I Wrote it =\--Golden19pxStar 16:29, 13 October 2008 (EDT) #Good idea imo. Spaggage 04:05, 4 November 2008 (EST) #Generic policy. We have evaluating Admins, we should have one for this as well. -- Guild of ''' 07:16, 4 November 2008 (EST) #What GoD said. ''Ojamo'' '(>.<( ' 07:29, 4 November 2008 (EST) #:Already a policy.. '''~ ĐONT*SYSOP 10:18, 4 November 2008 (EST) Against #why bother tbh? ツ cedave 03:52, 4 November 2008 (EST) Adding a short comment about WHY you're for or against would be helpful. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(sysop) 03:34, 25 September 2008 (EDT) short cut thing I'd like to hear thoughts on what the short cut name things should be (like PvX:NPA, PvX:EVAL). PheNaxKian Sysop 14:12, 27 September 2008 (EDT) :PvX:EVB?--Golden19pxStar 16:29, 13 October 2008 (EDT) Proposing a review of Tab and Ska Neither of these two actively play Guild Wars anymore, both of them are serving bans for the next month or two, and frankly neither of them care much about this site anymore, except as a playground to be asshats. Thinking that their BM status definitely needs a review--Golden19pxStar 15:42, 4 December 2008 (EST) :Ska beat me at gvg the other day, assuming I remembered his ign right. Lord of all tyria 15:46, 4 December 2008 (EST) ::Congratulations? 19px[[User:Victoryisyours|'Victory']][[User talk:Victoryisyours|'is']] 16:13, 4 December 2008 (EST) :::Was saying I don't know whether he's inactive, given that I saw him playing in euro timezones. Lord of all tyria 16:16, 4 December 2008 (EST) ::::You can be on GW 24/7 but you won't do shit on a wiki when you've been given long bans that you continually violate. -- 17:37, 4 December 2008 (EST) :::::Thought ska and tab were the anons who've been harassing me throughout a couple of pages, resolved over msn.--Golden19pxStar 18:02, 4 December 2008 (EST) ::::::So when you dont like someone you say they should have a review of their BM, but once you do like them again you say they shouldnt? Thats a rediculous of bias. Also, there is a difference between "harassment" and telling you why you are wrong. Once you fall onto petty insults you should only expect them back, which isnt harassment it is just giving you what you deserve. If you vote on everything this way (if you like someone or not) then your none of your votes on things like RfBM's should even be considered. 208.109.181.151 18:29, 4 December 2008 (EST) :::::::If a build master is giving another user constant, unwarranted harassment, despite being told to desist by admins, yes that is grounds for having the build master status reviewed. When it turns out it wasn't them, and is just some jackass, I rescinded my comments. Why are you being suck an asshole?--Golden19pxStar 19:15, 4 December 2008 (EST) ::::::::Ska's socks have been very active in contributing positively to the wiki. I kind of feel like he should just be unbanned tbh. - Misery Is Friendly 19px 04:39, 10 December 2008 (EST) :::::::::Agreed. --71.229 :::::::::Edit: Tab too. --71.229 ::::::::::71.229 not on an IP from 71.229 ;o --[[User:Frosty|F'rosty']] 05:42, 10 December 2008 (EST) :::::::::::I think he lost those IPs :< - Misery Is Friendly 19px 05:50, 10 December 2008 (EST) ::::::::::::I lost 71.229.204.25, still got 71.229.168.153 or whatever. I've been using this one for a while now. --71.229 :::::::::::::Okay 76.25 --[[User:Frosty|F'rosty']] 05:57, 10 December 2008 (EST) ::::::::::::::You could just use 71.229. Although admins would be flabbergasted when they checkuser for funsies. -- 07:21, 10 December 2008 (EST) As we do =p. I;m also inclined to unban Ska. (while I don't know who his sock(s) is(are), I'm sure Misery's right.) I'll talk to Auron and see what he thinks. ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 09:44, 10 December 2008 (EST) :ermm looks like Misery already unblocked him. oh well...>.> ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 09:46, 10 December 2008 (EST)